Anchor-and-Resume Concession Under Dynamic Pricing for LLM-Augmented Freight Negotiation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Freight brokerages negotiate thousands of carrier rates daily under dynamic pricing conditions where models frequently revise targets mid-conversation. Classical time-dependent concession frameworks use a fixed shape parameter β that cannot adapt to these updates. Deriving β from the live spread enables adaptation but introduces a new problem: a pricing shift can cause the formula to retract a previous offer, violating monotonicity. LLM-powered brokers offer flexibility but require expensive reasoning models, produce non-deterministic pricing, and remain vulnerable to prompt injection. We propose a two-index anchor-and-resume framework that addresses both limitations. A spread-derived β maps each load's margin structure to the correct concession posture, while the anchor-and-resume mechanism guarantees monotonically non-decreasing offers under arbitrary pricing shifts. All pricing decisions remain in a deterministic formula; the LLM, when used, serves only as a natural-language translation layer. Empirical evaluation across 115,125 negotiations shows that the adaptive β tailors behavior by regime: in narrow spreads, it concedes quickly to prioritize deal closure and load coverage; in medium and wide spreads, it matches or exceeds the best fixed-β baselines in broker savings. Against an unconstrained 20-billion-parameter LLM broker, it achieves similar agreement rates and savings. Against LLM-powered carriers as more realistic stochastic counterparties, it maintains comparable savings and higher agreement rates than against rule-based opponents. By decoupling the LLM from pricing logic, the framework scales horizontally to thousands of concurrent negotiations with negligible inference cost and transparent decision-making.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2026.
Builds on
7 of 21 references.
References · 7
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2017Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialoguescited by 202
- 2023Improving Language Model Negotiation with Self-Play and In-Context Learning from AI Feedbackcited by 202
- 2018Decoupling Strategy and Generation in Negotiation Dialoguescited by 156
- 2023Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiationcited by 94
- 2024How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and Analysiscited by 93
- 2020A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach to Concurrent Bilateral Negotiationcited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026TERMS-Bench: Diagnosing LLM Negotiation Agents Beyond Deal Rate
- 2026Training Language Models for Bilateral Trade with Private Information
- 2026The Shadow Price of Intelligence: Quality Degradation in LLM Inference as a Supply Chain Problem
- 2026Counterparty Modeling is Not Strategy: The Limits of LLM Negotiators
- 2025ATLAS: Adaptive Trading with LLM AgentS Through Dynamic Prompt Optimization and Multi-Agent Coordination
- 2024A Tale of Two Cities: Pessimism and Opportunism in Offline Dynamic Pricing
- 2025The Illusion of Rationality: Tacit Bias and Strategic Dominance in Frontier LLM Negotiation Games
- 2026ParetoBandit: Budget-Paced Adaptive Routing for Non-Stationary LLM Serving